"i'm just going to default to being a little on the paranoid side and just not believe stuff," he says. Scepticism, as you would certainly know, is a a value in science. But scepticism has this double edged quality - it's something that scientists are supposed to do but also works against consensus of science. "I think it's so plausible for some one to say, i'm not a pseudo scientist. I'm what i believe is not orthodox, of course."
Everyone has heard of the term “pseudoscience”, typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Many would be able to agree on a list of things that fall under its umbrella — astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics might come to mind. But defining what makes these fields “pseudo” is a far more complex issue. Given the virulence of contemporary disputes over the denial of climate change and anti-vaccination movements — both of which display allegations of “pseudoscience” on all sides — there is a clear need to better understand issues of scientific demarcation. Shermer and Gordin explore the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation.